Campbell v. United States, No. 73

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBUTLER
Citation69 L.Ed. 328,266 U.S. 368,45 S.Ct. 115
Docket NumberNo. 73
Decision Date08 December 1924
PartiesCAMPBELL v. UNITED STATES

266 U.S. 368
45 S.Ct. 115
69 L.Ed. 328
CAMPBELL

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 73.
Argued Oct. 15, 1924.
Decided Dec. 8, 1924.

Page 369

Mr. John V. Campbell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se.

The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought by John V. Campbell to recover compensation for 1.81 acres of land taken by the United States to be part of a site for a plant for the production of nitrates. The district court found that the value of the land was $750, and that, by the taking, the remainder of his property was damaged $2,250. It also found that, by reason of the uses to be made of lands acquired from others for the same project, plaintiff's lands not taken were damaged $5,000. The court allowed the first two items and disallowed the last. The judgment was for $3,000 and interest. Plaintiff took the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error, but it should have been brought to this court (section 24, par. 20, Judicial Code [Comp. St. § 991]; J. Homer Fritch, Inc., v. United States, 248 U. S. 458, 39 S. Ct. 158, 63 L. Ed. 359), and it was transferred under section 238a, Judicial Code (Act Sept. 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a]). 291 F. 1015. The question for decision is whether plaintiff was entitled to

Page 370

the damages to the remainder of his estate resulting from the use to be made of the lands acquired from others.

In 1918 the United States, to aid in the prosecution of the war, had determined to build a nitrate plant at Ancor in the Little Miami valley, near Cincinnati, Ohio. In order to get a site, it had taken possession of many parcels of land making up a large tract, adjoining plaintiff's estate of 69.73 acres. August 31, 1918, an officer of the army, acting under the direction of the Secretary of War, and without obtaining plaintiff's consent or instituting condemnation proceedings or making any compensation therefor, took possession of a part of plaintiff's land, which was separated from the remainder by a public road. It was a garden, lying at the foot of a hill on which plaintiff's residence was situated. The entire tract, including the land taken from plaintiff, comprised 1,300 acres. The United States constructed on the site buildings, roads, railroads, a sewerage system, and such other things as are usually incidental to a large industrial plant. After the armistice, the project was abandoned. Some of the lands constituting the site were returned to the former owners, and some were sold. And the United States has determined to sell the rest of the land which includes that taken from plaintiff and amounts in all to 320 acres. The court found that the damages to the remainder of plaintiff's estate from the use to be made of lands acquired from others resulted chiefly from the probability that the tract, improved as it has been by the United States will be sold and used for industrial purposes.

The taking was under the sovereign power of eminent domain. The President and Secretary of War were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
127 practice notes
  • United States v. Crary
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • October 24, 1932
    ...but this provision is not applicable to a condemnation proceeding instituted by the federal government. See Campbell v. U. S., 266 U. S. 368, 371, 45 S. Ct. 115, 69 L. Ed. 328. Additional authority for this statement will be cited further along in this (b) Damages to Other Property of the C......
  • United States v. Finn, Civ. A. No. 14309.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • November 5, 1954
    ...of a condemnation proceeding, Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1933, 5 F.Supp. 156, 172; See Campbell v. United States, 1924, 266 U.S. 368, 370-371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328, for the power of eminent domain is an ever-present attribute of sovereignty and exists independently of t......
  • Tug Allie-B Inc. v. U.S., ALLIE-
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 16, 2001
    ...the applicability of the Limitation Act, "there can be no doubt that [the Limitation Act] would apply unless repealed." Id. at 367, 45 S. Ct. at 115. In fact, the Court drew this conclusion even while noting the Limitation Act is not mentioned in the Jones Act's list of statutory provisions......
  • Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. U.S., No. 04-5108.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • September 21, 2005
    ...by the taking, the Constitution has never been construed as requiring payment of consequential damages[.]"); Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328 (1924) ("[I]f the land taken from plaintiff had belonged to another, or if it had not been deemed part and pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
127 cases
  • United States v. Crary
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • October 24, 1932
    ...but this provision is not applicable to a condemnation proceeding instituted by the federal government. See Campbell v. U. S., 266 U. S. 368, 371, 45 S. Ct. 115, 69 L. Ed. 328. Additional authority for this statement will be cited further along in this (b) Damages to Other Property of the C......
  • United States v. Finn, Civ. A. No. 14309.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • November 5, 1954
    ...of a condemnation proceeding, Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1933, 5 F.Supp. 156, 172; See Campbell v. United States, 1924, 266 U.S. 368, 370-371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328, for the power of eminent domain is an ever-present attribute of sovereignty and exists independently of t......
  • Tug Allie-B Inc. v. U.S., ALLIE-
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 16, 2001
    ...the applicability of the Limitation Act, "there can be no doubt that [the Limitation Act] would apply unless repealed." Id. at 367, 45 S. Ct. at 115. In fact, the Court drew this conclusion even while noting the Limitation Act is not mentioned in the Jones Act's list of statutory provisions......
  • Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. U.S., No. 04-5108.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • September 21, 2005
    ...by the taking, the Constitution has never been construed as requiring payment of consequential damages[.]"); Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328 (1924) ("[I]f the land taken from plaintiff had belonged to another, or if it had not been deemed part and pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT